ECT: Do those who believe MAD have no problem disregarding what Jesus actually taught ?

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The 10 tribes were divorced from God, told they were not a people, told God would have no mercy on them, and scattered.

These things never happened to the Jews.

Tet,
could we slow a second on this Heb 8:8 thing.

1, there are hundreds of literary examples of a Hebraism called parallelism. Line A and B say the same thing in parallelism. They are usually emphasizing the unity of the two lines. It is a whole category in Proverbs and hundreds in Psalms and prophets.

A perfect example of //ism happens to be in Heb 8:12 which is there because it is LXX for the Jer 31 passage.
A = forgive wickedness
B = remember sins no more

Obviously unified, obvious restatement.

I don't know that the distinction is being made; he would have said "I will make new covenants..." From other NT passages about the NC it is much more likely that all mankind is intended of which this division is one picture, for the sake of Israel, to help it see near/far, found/lost, etc.

The next line (8:9) then looks back: there was one covenant, and one group called the forefathers. This group is mentioned 3x in the next three lines. We should stay within the categories of the writer.

Nope; both you and those few of my fellow Madists who also hold to that are in error.

Romans 4 makes it clear there were two aspects as to Abraham.

One before he received the sign of circumcision, and one after.

With Israel's fall to the level of the Gentile's spiritual uncircumcision status per both the end of Acts 7 and much of Romans 1 thru 3, things were now spiritually as they had been back when in Genesis 11 and 12 (see the latter half of Acts 17, as well).

The operating principle - uncircumcision.

Just as ALL had been in Gen. 11 and 12.

Just as now, and until the fulness of Romans 11:25 be come in - all are in uncircumcision.

Thing is, you and those of my fellow Mads who end up at your same off base distinction do, because the mention of Abraham throws you both off.

Said few fellow Mads dropping right then and there how Mad studies such seeming perplexities out, in favor of how the Acts 28 Position does - it reads what is not there, into it.

You both forget that Paul has to point out a connection between both aspects of God's Two-Fold Purpose: Prophecy and Mystery.

There were many faults addressed about Israel in Stephen's sermon and by Paul (they always heap their sins) and failure to circ was not it. Uncirc of heart is much closer.

Danoh, please repeat whatever is the twofold purpose of Prophecy and Mystery. Because the topic is unified in the passages about it.

There is nothing in the NT that sounds like the aspects of Abraham; it is not what he is an example of. He had faith before circ and faith after (except when he doubted) so the NT emphasis is not on splitting him up by on his faith either way.

You have shown that MAD has a knack for what is not there or what is not emphasized.

In Romans 11:2, Paul is NOT speaking about Jews. Elijah was an Israelite from the 10 tribes.

The seven thousand were NOT Jews, they were Israelites from the 10 tribes.

Not knowing the difference between the houses is why 99.9% of people don't understand Romans 11.

You haven't told me what I don't understand yet. "Romans 11" is too wide of a subject, containing too many subjects. I think he saying more about the mission that Israel (!) should have been doing, as addressed in ch 10 from the middle onward. He really wishes they were in the mission that was supposed to get the Gospel out to the whole world, not stay at home and fight for liberation, hopelessly.

Why should anyone believe you know who epistles are written to, when you are clueless as to who 1 Peter was written to?

So James writes to twelve tribes scattered aboard, but Peter writes only to 10 of those 12 scattered tribes?

You are a riot.

Originally Posted by tetelestai

This isn't complicated.

In the book of Hosea, the House of Israel is told they are not a people, that God would have no mercy on them, and that they would be scattered.

In the same book of Hosea, we are told the House of Judah would receive mercy.

(Hosea 1:6-7) ....for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away.

7 But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah...

Wrong again Wrong Divider.

(1 Peter 2:10)Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Go back and read Hosea 1:6-7. It's crystal clear that one house received mercy, and one house did not receive mercy.

So, there is no way Peter is addressing both houses, when it was only one of the houses who didn't receive mercy.

Again, it's impossible that Peter was writing to Jews.

No, it's not that hard Bible chopper.... read the whole thing INCLUDING the verses that Peter quotes in 1 Peter 2:10

Hos 1:6-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:6) ¶ And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And [God] said unto him, Call her name Lo-ruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. (1:7) But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. (1:8) ¶ Now when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. (1:9) Then said [God], Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye [are] not my people, and I will not be your [God]. (1:10) ¶ Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people, [there] it shall be said unto them, [Ye are] the sons of the living God. (1:11) Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great [shall be] the day of Jezreel.

THAT is the part that PETER quotes (specifically Hos 1:10), you ignorant loser.

Maybe you also should read some Paul to clear up your confusion:

Rom 11:28-33 (AKJV/PCE)

(11:28) As concerning the gospel, [they are] enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, [they are] beloved for the fathers' sakes. (11:29) For the gifts and calling of God [are] without repentance. (11:30) For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief: (11:31) Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy. (11:32) For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. (11:33) O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable [are] his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

Originally Posted by tetelestai

Again, it's impossible that Peter was addressing Jews in the above passages. Peter was addressing only Israelites from the 10 tribes.

When God divorced the Israelites from the 10 tribes, scattered them, told them they weren't a people, and told them He would have no mercy on them, where where they 700 years later when Jesus was born?

Before you answer, remember, Joseph had the birthright blessing. Meaning, the population of those Israelites would be much greater than the population of the Jews in the first century.

So, where were these millions of Israelites (who were never Jews) in the first century?

(1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

So James writes to twelve tribes scattered aboard, but Peter writes only to 10 of those 12 scattered tribes?

Correct.

Peter's audience are the descendants of the 10 tribes, they were never Jews.

No, it's not that hard Bible chopper.... read the whole thing INCLUDING the verses that Peter quotes in 1 Peter 2:10

Hos 1:6-11 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:6) ¶ And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And [God] said unto him, Call her name Lo-ruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. (1:7) But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen. (1:8) ¶ Now when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. (1:9) Then said [God], Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye [are] not my people, and I will not be your [God]. (1:10) ¶ Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people, [there] it shall be said unto them, [Ye are] the sons of the living God. (1:11) Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great [shall be] the day of Jezreel.

You just refuted yourself.

Peter told those Israelites from the 10 tribes that they were now a people of God.

The verse you highlighted says that when that happened, the two houses would be joined together.

That's what did happen. It was Christ Jesus who joined the two houses together when He implemented the New Covenant with His shed blood.

(1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

When God divorced the Israelites from the 10 tribes, scattered them, told them they weren't a people, and told them He would have no mercy on them, where where they 700 years later when Jesus was born?

Before you answer, remember, Joseph had the birthright blessing. Meaning, the population of those Israelites would be much greater than the population of the Jews in the first century.

So, where were these millions of Israelites (who were never Jews) in the first century?

So why use titles like 'the king of the Jews'?
Why did Roman admins refer to / regret having to 'deal with the Jews'?
Why did Josephus title one of his larger pieces the Jewish Revolt?

There was a picture of 'not a people' for a while in Israel's history, but Paul uses the picture to welcome Gentile believers. You're being temporarily more literal than needed.